blonde poker forum

Described as the worst terrorist attack ever.

Worse than this? http://www.warbirdforum.com/hirodead.htm

rly?

u think they are the same?

act of war

act of terrorism - very different

Hiroshima not a terrorist attack and don't see a lot to debate about it

Clearly it's 9/11

Really, so how you classify mass killing of people makes it more acceptable?

well if that is your line and you still think its hiroshima you are as clueless as you sound atm

Really, so how you classify mass killing of people makes it more acceptable?

OK, so the 100000+ killed by UK/US bombs on Iraq........does illegal war count? or is this different from terrorism?

Its not, but its also is not a terrorist attack.

Was it illegal?

low level troll alert

Without doubt, futile arguaments otherwise have been shot down in flames very recently

Is this a Blonde forum thing? - I've noticed that should anyone post anything slightly worth a debate that is disputed by a 'local' then they are branded as a 'troll' - is this a closed forum, only debates allowed by the like minded?

yeah we are all cliquey

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Is this a Blonde forum thing? - I've noticed that should anyone post anything slightly worth a debate that is disputed by a 'local' then they are branded as a 'troll' - is this a closed forum, only debates allowed by the like minded?

Is this a Blonde forum thing? - I've noticed that should anyone post anything slightly worth a debate that is disputed by a 'local' then they are branded as a 'troll' - is this a closed forum, only debates allowed by the like minded?

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary evils that saved alot of allied lives. This was also at a time when the Allies were very war weary.

Did you say in a previous thread that you had ancestors fight in WW2?  If so, then without the bomb you may find you'd not be around today.  Lots of soldiers that had finished fighting in Europe/Africa/Middle East would have been diverted to SE Asia - for a very dirty fight. Imagine Nam, but ten times worse.

I'd suggest you do some reading about the Japanese Empires expansionist strategy in Asia; you'll soon realise that they would absolutely fight to the very death and take as many allies with them as possible. Read this on Bushido:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushido (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushido)

Oh and if you doubt how nice the Japs were then go out and buy this book:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Forgotten-Highlander-Incredible-Survival-During/dp/1405507659 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Forgotten-Highlander-Incredible-Survival-During/dp/1405507659)

It's about a soldier from the Gordon Highlanders (was your ancestor in this unit?), who manned Singapore when it capitulated. It is the story of his capture, his time in the camps and his transportation by Death ship to Japan. Oh and also how the 'nice' Japanese civilian population treated them.  He also witnessed Hiroshima from ground level. Very moving and absolutely horrifying.

the absence of evidence does not mean the evidence of absence

I don't necessarily agree with levelling of civilian populations.  The Nurermburg trials could have brought charges for war crimes against the Luftwaffe's commanders. But they chose not too, as they knew that Bomber Command had committed similar (and in cases worse) acts themselves. Victors justice.

But the bomb was also an ominous threat, a window into what could have been for the Emporer had he followed Anami's plan to fight the allies on home soil.

What are you referring to with 'revisionist' Dan? Or what parts do you disagree with?

Do the various factions across the world who we label terrorists see themselves as such or do they see themselves as freedom fighters in a war.
Bin laden is just guilty of killing innocents as Tony Blair IMO.  We  choose to call one a terrorist and the other a great leader.
New members should be encouraged to post their views and should not be ridiculed for it.
He who is without sin shall cast the first stone.

To Kin's point - it may not have been the incident that caused the Japanese to surrender but I'm pretty sure the intention was to get them to surrender in the face of the possibility of further attacks.

...
In addition to this, the dropping of the bombs was a message to the Soviets.  How was the post-WWII world going to be structured, and of course the US had a huge fear of the expansion of Communism from the Soviet Union and this was the real enemy in the American's eyes, and they certainly didn't want Japan to become part of the Soviet Bloc in this new world order. ...

To Kin's point - it may not have been the incident that caused the Japanese to surrender but I'm pretty sure the intention was to get them to surrender in the face of the possibility of further attacks.

it may not have been the flying to two planes into the Twin Towers that caused the USA/UK to surrender but I'm pretty sure the intention was to get them to stop aggression and occupation of chunks of the Middle East in the face of the possibility of further attacks.

I'm pretty sure this has been convincingly disputed. I don't there there's actually much evidence to suggest at that point in time that the US was worried about Soviet expansion - and that it's a revisionist view of the events to think that that they were.

There may be 'other' reasons for the atomic attack, and 'other' reasons for carpet bombing but the most likely explanations for those decisions being taken have always been the official explanations; namely to bring a quicker end to the war without risking a land attack and to demoralise the civilian population enough that they bring pressure on their leaders to end the war.

The strategy in any of these military cases might be 'wrong' and not actually have worked - but there's no strong evidence to suggest that there was any 'hidden' intentions behind them.

Please explain

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zn44sXhLwAM

I'm pretty sure this has been convincingly disputed. I don't there there's actually much evidence to suggest at that point in time that the US was worried about Soviet expansion - and that it's a revisionist view of the events to think that that they were.

There may be 'other' reasons for the atomic attack, and 'other' reasons for carpet bombing but the most likely explanations for those decisions being taken have always been the official explanations; namely to bring a quicker end to the war without risking a land attack and to demoralise the civilian population enough that they bring pressure on their leaders to end the war.

The strategy in any of these military cases might be 'wrong' and not actually have worked - but there's no strong evidence to suggest that there was any 'hidden' intentions behind them.

I didn't say the fire-bombing of Tokyo wasn't done with the aim of winning the war. I doubt they did it for giggles. Same with the atomic bombings, of course they were carried out as acts of war (the goal being to win, but also unfortunately to do this by killing loads of people, and often civilians), but the effectiveness of mass destruction of civilian populations in a country where the leaders were calling on its people to fight to the death and never surrender doesn't really knit. I also think it's very naiive to think there weren't other factors behind the atomic bombings (and I obviously think these other factors were the driving factors).

Anyway, I doubt anyone will want to read the book, but you might want to read this article about it: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/08/07/why_did_japan_surrender/?page=full

lol politics-aments

Sounds pretty obviously like a diplomatic blunder followed by an attempt to cover it up. A diplomat saying that the US wants to stay friends with Iraq (as they had been for quite a while) and that they don't want to get involved in any of their local disputes is a long way from a rubber stamp anyway.

It's also fairly overt politicking when Ron Paul suggests this caused the current problems when, if anything, it only contributed to the first war with Iraq. That was over relatively cleanly and quickly - it could have stopped there, the further developments after that may have still been caused by the USA (or not) but they've got nothing to do with that diplomatic error at the beginning.

3 things you should never take at face value are diplomacy, politics and wikileaks.

...
Whatever they meant by 'we won't get involved', it's pretty rich trying to use Iraq's hostility against Kuwait as the premise for invasion when you openly showed a lack of opposition to it in the first place. And withheld that crucial lack of opposition from those from whom you sought approval to begin hostilities.

The second Iraq war has a lot to do with Iraq's earlier invasion of Kuwait. Think WMDs, 90 minute readiness for long range strikes, all in the context of 'some bastard who had previously struck out at his own'.

Bush Senior and Bush Junyior both held high positions in the largest Oilfield services companies, which benefited massively from both invasions. Oops, coinkidink.

But Hirohito is quoted as saying that the dropping of the bombs was instrumental in bringing japan to the decision to surrender. So even if the USA had just wanted to test out their new toys (by the way they had been tested in the desert on a number of occasions so they had a bit of an idea that they were not just fire crackers) they bought on an early end to WW II.

Just watched the bin laden shoot to kill documentary on ch 4 and wish that he had been captured alive and given a fair court trial.

    United States United States: 1,054 tests by official count (involving at least 1,151 devices, 331 atmospheric tests), most at Nevada Test Site and the Pacific Proving Grounds in the Marshall Islands, with 10 other tests taking place at various locations in the United States, including Amchitka Alaska, Colorado, Mississippi, and New Mexico (see Nuclear weapons and the United States for details).[5]
    Soviet Union Soviet Union: 715 tests (involving 969 devices) by official count,[6] most at Semipalatinsk Test Site and Novaya Zemlya, and a few more at various sites in Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Ukraine.
    France France: 210 tests by official count (50 atmospheric, 160 underground[7]), 4 atomic atmospheric tests at C.E.S.M. near Reggane, 13 atomic underground tests at C.E.M.O. near In Ekker in the then-French Algerian Sahara, and nuclear atmospheric tests at Fangataufa and nuclear undersea tests Moruroa in French Polynesia. Additional atomic and chemical warfare tests took place in the secret base B2-Namous, near Ben Wenif, other tests involving rockets and missiles at C.I.E.E.S, near Hammaguir, both in the Sahara.
    United Kingdom United Kingdom: 45 tests (21 in Australian territory, including 9 in mainland South Australia at Maralinga and Emu Field, some at Christmas Island in the Pacific Ocean, plus many others in the United States as part of joint test series)[8]
    People's Republic of China China: 45 tests (23 atmospheric and 22 underground, at Lop Nur Nuclear Weapons Test Base, in Malan, Xinjiang)[9][10]
    India India: 6 underground tests (including the first one in 1974), at Pokhran[citation needed].
    Pakistan Pakistan: 6 underground tests, at Ras Koh Hills, Chagai District and Kharan Desert, Kharan District in Balochistan Province[citation needed].

    North Korea North Korea: two tests at Hwadae-ri[citation needed].

I'd so much rather be shot in the lung!!

Lots of folks talking about the possibility of an anniversary attack. Why do they think Muslim extremists are going to carry out an attack in accordance with the Gregorian calendar?

no they aren't, iplayers been spamming them like crazy recently and basically every major conspiracy theory has been completely debunked by people who arent headcases

This obviously.

+1..Oh and everyone who believes that the US govt was behind the attack is clearly a moron.

+1..Oh and everyone who believes that the US govt was behind the attack is clearly a moron.

no they aren't, iplayers been spamming them like crazy recently and basically every major conspiracy theory has been completely debunked by people who arent headcases

Then of course you've the army of people who are suppressing the truth. As a general rule of thumb, the more people who must be complicit in the dastardly conspiracy for it to work, the more likely it is that it's not actually a dastardly conspiracy at all.

It would take months to prepare a controlled demolition and it takes highly skilled engineers to ensure that the building falls into its own footprint but this happened on 3 occasions on the same day naturally. Demolition experts have stated that it would take over a year to prepare for buildings the size of 1&2 yet there was absolutely no tilt.

Pretty sure the skilled demolition workers could do it in a couple of hours if they were allowed to kill everyone.

They were pretty sure at that point it was going to collapse. So yes, people knew it was going to collapse before it did. And this is news, apparently.

The BBC are reputed to report facts after confirmation unlike sky etc, for them to report the collapse minutes before it happened is highly unlike them (in theory they will wait till the sun actually goes down before it is reported that the sun has already gone down).

I'm not an engineer but here's my explanation as to why the various building mentioned collapsed.



Building 1

A plane flew into it.



Building 2

A plane flew into it.



Building 7

Building 1, big building, much mess when it came down, building 7 pretty close.
Building 2, big building, much mess when it came down, building 7 pretty close.

I propose an experiment.

First we build a tower the same size as tower 1 or 2 of the trade centre out of the same materials. We invite all the conspiracy theorists to come on down and have a look around with sniffy dogs to check we haven't hidden any charges anywhere. When they're happy with this, we move them into the bottom few floors of the tower and sling a large passenger aircraft into somewhere near the top.

If they're happy to stay inside for 2 hours then I'll happily hear all they have to say about 9/11 when they come out.

You really are a muppet.

tank, the planes were almost irrelevant to the towers.

Confident there's some sort of a causal link. :)

Confident there's some sort of a causal link. :)

<3 Tank

Re. Highmile

There are many people who speak with great confidence about the temperature at which aviation fuel burns at and the temperature which is needed to melt steel and how therefore the only possible way the towers could have imploded is if there were charges set. My flight of fancy would be to explore the real extent of this confidence.

Some people may think I wasn't being entirely serious but more fool them. You saw the truth and stood in lone opposition to my inhumane and impractical proposal. I now see the error of my ways. God bless you.

no they aren't, iplayers been spamming them like crazy recently and basically every major conspiracy theory has been completely debunked by people who arent headcases